On 9/27/2012 10:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think the only difference in what you are saying and what I am saying, is I say look the zombies can do these things (by their definition), so they must be conscious and there is the inconsistency, whereas you say zombies cannot do these things since they are not conscious (by their definition), so then zombie behavior cannot be indistinguishable to a third party.

It works out to the same conclusion, either zombies are conscious, or zombies can't behave indistinguishably, and hence the definition of a zombie that is non-conscious but has identical behavior is flawed.

Hi Jason,

I am fine with identity of the two if and only if there is no distinguishable difference in behavior, as this gives us a 3p definition, but to only see that case as the whole of the gamut of possibilities is a mistake. My claim is that the zombie idea can cause as much confusion as it's proponents intended to solve. Ideas are two edged things.... Otherwise they are just meaningless noise.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to